Wilh Loesch India Pvt Ltd Vs Deputy Commissioner And Another (Allahabad High Court)
The Allahabad High Court allowed a writ petition challenging an appellate order that had dismissed the petitioner’s GST appeal solely on the ground of limitation without examining the merits. The petitioner contended that the assessment/adjudication order came to its knowledge only on 09.11.2025, when recovery proceedings were initiated. This fact was specifically pleaded in the delay condonation application, but the Appellate Authority treated the date of passing of the order as the date of communication without considering the petitioner’s plea or any supporting material.
The Court noted that the issue was covered by the decisions in Bombino Agro Industries Limited and Manoj Kumar, Proprietor of M/s Sai Traders. It reiterated that where a dealer specifies the actual date of communication of an order, the burden shifts to the Revenue to rebut that assertion with cogent material. In the absence of such evidence, the date declared by the dealer must be treated as the actual date of communication, and the limitation period must be computed accordingly.
Since the petitioner’s assertion that the order was communicated on 09.11.2025 had not been rebutted by any cogent material, the High Court held that the appellate order rejecting the appeal on limitation could not be sustained.
